We all know about the Christians who are Catholic haters. They are the ones who despise the Catholic Church, claiming that it's not the true faith, "there's no Pope in the Bible" and that Catholics are all going to be "left behind" in the rapture and thus end up going to hell.
Hmm. Well, this is for any who might be sado-masochists and thus read my blog, ha ha ha, but mostly this is a case study, especially for my much loved younger readers (hi there!) Here is how to handle this situation using both faith and reasoning. The faith part assumes that you are a Christian who believes in Jesus Christ as Messiah, Savior and Son of God. Assuming that, let's go to work with using reasoning.
POOF!!!!!!!!!!
One of these Christians who has genuine faith in Jesus Christ but who hates Catholics has been transported back in time, exactly to the time and place of Jesus Christ.
He or she looks around, and there is Jesus himself, in the process of selecting the Apostles. The Apostles include Simon, whom Jesus renames Peter (the Rock), who Catholics consider the first pope. The Apostles also include Judas Iscariot, the one who will betray Jesus.
What does our Catholic hating Christian do, he or she who knows how the future turns out. As tempted as he or she is to run up to Jesus and tell him not to select or trust Judas, he or she, through their genuine faith, realizes that Judas (or someone) will inevitably betray Jesus since that is God's will and his greater plan. So he or she puts a sock in their pie hole about telling Jesus not to select Judas.
But oh my goodness, there is the big fat tempting target Peter.
So let's assume that our Catholic hating but genuinely loving of Jesus runs up to Jesus and throws him or her self at Jesus and implores him "Do not select Peter as an Apostle! Don't you know what will happen? They will establish a false church around him, called the Roman Catholic Church! At it's peak it will have one billion members! They will all go to hell!"
[Bonus question. Do you think he or she will actually blush a bit at "telling Jesus what is going to happen in the future?"]
So here are the questions, using reasoning.
Question 1. If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and you were suddenly, with no explanation, time traveled back to precisely when Jesus selects Peter and/or later when Peter is given by Christ "the keys," would you beg or admonish Jesus not to select Peter? Why?
Question 2. If you do not go quite that far as to actually beg Jesus not to select Peter, would you "warn" Jesus about what "will happen in the future?" Why? (I mean, would you reckon Jesus does not know? What would that say about him being the Son of God? I mean, that he would need you to tell him what will happen.)
Question 3. Suppose that you DO tell Jesus either 1 or 2. Which of Jesus' replies would you prefer? I assume that you would prefer the reply that strengthens your faith, because what other objective would you have?
A. "Thanks for telling me. You are right; I am not going to select Peter after all."
B. "No kidding.... really? That's what is going to happen in the future? A billion Catholics? You were right to tell me, because that's not what I want at all!"
C. "Well, if I change things now that will change the scriptures, of course, and you'll return to your time and find it all different and messed up. So here's what I will do. I'll let things go as you know they did, but .... (hey, what exactly is your name again?).... I'll have Paul write in an epistle that in the year 2000 all Catholics should now listen to you and what you say, and abandon the Church and follow you!" You return to your own time and find that sure enough, Paul wrote to Timothy, "By the way in the year 2000 all Catholic Church members should abandon their faith and listen to Joe Schmo instead, and he will tell them how to be saved."
D. "Yes, you are right. God and I know that billions of people will make a really bad mistake based on what I said to Peter, and all of them will go to hell. Depressing, isn't it?" (That ought to make you really want to worship Jesus).
E. Jesus sits you down and fills you in on the "secret plan" that God "has," and you leave all self glorified knowing that YOU know something that even the Apostles do not know. You laugh up your sleeve at how awesome a secret you have and oh well, God has his reasons for letting over a billion people make the "wrong" choice and while thinking they are following Jesus, they are probably going to end up in hell cause God has a "secret plan" *chortle.*
Young people, which of these answers, if any of them, would make you love Jesus more and trust God more? None I would reckon, but hey, that's just me saying.
If you have faith you MUST ALSO HAVE BRAINS AND REASONING BASED on FAITH and TRUST.
Either Jesus is here to save and not to destroy, or he is not. Would Jesus chuckle to himself at over a billion people thinking they are following him, but they are all going to hell instead? Would God let so many Christian people "misunderstand?" What kind of Jesus, Son of God, or God the Father would THAT be? Not the Jesus or the God that I know and love.
And wow, if Jesus needs Joe Schmo to go back in time and clue him in, that would sure make a lot of people nervous. Did Jesus really launch the New Covenant without having a clue what would happen? He knew what Saul (who became Paul) was up to. Why would he not know that Joe Schmo two thousand years later could have told Jesus that he needs to tighten up his decision making and his scripture wording, since over a billion people will "misunderstand" and thus miss out in the rapture and go to hell? Yikes.
When someone has this type of blind disregard for fellow Christians, you have to give him or her the benefit of the doubt, which they are not giving in their turn, and allow belief that their faith is genuine. OK, so you believe in Jesus and God. So..... why do you not trust them to know better than you? You need to help such people use some reasoning along with their faith, using dialogue such as what I provided. Otherwise you just quote scriptures in kind of a rote kabuki theater fashion at each other. Put them there in that place of time and ask them, "What would you say to Jesus? And what reply could Jesus make that would satisfy you?"
Enlightening, no? ;-)
Showing posts with label Christian poor faith formation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian poor faith formation. Show all posts
Monday, August 17, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Understanding Jesus' words and other dialogue
Here is another quick thought where I'm going to point you all in a direction but not go through extensive scripture citation.
When one reads the scripture, specifically the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles, one realizes that Jesus and the disciples frequently quote from and reference the Biblical writings of the prophets. These writings are what Christians call the Old Testament of the Bible today. The Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) were deeply studied by pious Jews of the time of Christ, of course. The Gospel tells how the scholars at the Temple admired and were astonished by the knowledge of the young boy Jesus.
Most Christians when asked to name an example of Jesus citing scripture would think of the famous exchange between Jesus as he fasted in the desert before commencing his public ministry and Satan, who tried to tempt Jesus away from his mission. This is recounted in Matthew 4:1-11.
Here is the point that I'm going to make for you to consider.
Whenever anyone "cites scripture" (to use a modern expression that everyone takes for granted these days) they did not do it with the technique or attitude that people utilize today. Today people having "dueling scripture" mentality that is based upon "knowing where to look for 'the answer' in the Bible" and thus they center upon (somewhat pridefully) citing the "numbers" (book, chapter and verse). No one, not Jesus, not the Apostles, nor Satan himself, did that during Biblical times. No one said, "If you look in scroll number four and read the tenth sentence it says etc etc etc." People simply said "It is written that..."
Then the devil took him into the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, "If thou art the Son of God, throw thyself down; for it is written 'He will give his angels charge concerning thee; and upon their hands they shall bear thee up, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.'" Jesus said to him, "It is written further, 'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God'" Matthew 4:5-7.
Read for yourselves any place in the New Testament where scripture is cited and you will see that no one gave reference points, such as the book's name, the chapter or the verse, and virtually all used the unchallenged opening phrase to their quotation "it is written."
Why is this important and why am I pointing this out tonight in this blog entry?
I've repeatedly advised my readers that one cannot understand God's words, whether in the Bible or the Qur'an, unless one understands the context of the times. Most people could not read or write and the word of God was an oral experience for them, as God's word was given to the people by the priests, and learned verbally from scholars and family members. No one had the mindset that they had to "prove it is 'in the Bible'" by citing chapter and verse (or scroll or line). So Satan cites scripture and Jesus gives a counter citation, but neither says to the other (duh) "where does it say that in the Bible?" The Bible, of course, did not exist in the chapter and verse form that Christians use today and that is my point.
If one wants a truly authentic emulation of Jesus and the disciples, one needs to read and comprehend the entire Bible, not memorize the key "trick phrases" and citations that bolster one's familiar arguments and beliefs. No one challenged each other "where does it 'say that'" back in the times of Jesus because no one would even think of incorrectly citing scripture.
In other words, authentic knowers of God's word are not "defensive" in their attitudes, as many are today.
So Satan cites scripture without even saying "where" that scripture comes from and "who said it" and about what. In return, Jesus does the same thing, citing scripture without saying who said it and "where it comes from."
Generations of Christian scholars (yep, those early church fathers, both Catholic and Orthodox) performed detailed study of the scripture and footnoting so that future generations would know who and what Jesus and the others were citing.
So if you have an annotated Bible, you can determine by reading the footnote that Satan was citing from the Book of Psalms, while Jesus replied citing Deuteronomy.
Do you understand the two points that I am trying to make? The first point is that neither Satan nor Jesus "came prepared with citations up their sleeves to have that debate." Both so well know the scripture that when the dialogue took place, each could think of the most pertinent citation to make on the spot. How many people do that today? Rather, moderns are proud that they have "pre loaded scripture" that they can cite chapter and verse for the most familiar of purposes and well worn paths of debate, rather than understanding the meaning of the entire Bible, and then drawing from it as needed on the spot, regardless of the occasion for Biblical reference. So if one really wants to be "like Jesus" or the "genuine Apostles," one would have to have mastery of the entire Bible in its content and context, not hopping around extracting and memorizing favorite useful sayings, like they are bullet points for debate cues.
The second point is the temptation that an index system (chapter and verse) provides to those who distill everything into numbers and punch lines. Whenever humans have a technological advance, there is always a plus and a minus. The plus to having written Bibles that are inexpensively printed and able to be read by all is that obviously it is the great equalizer that rich or poor, all can have God's word to have and reference. The minus is that the word of God becomes less of an atmosphere that one is verbally immersed within and becomes, simply put, another intellectual tool.
A reverse snobbery takes place. How often do you see a bumper sticker with just a citation rather than the words? For example, you'd see the above dialogue as a bumper sticker that simply says "Matthew 4:5-7." Those who are "in the know" would see that bumper sticker and recognize that the people who owned that car are citing that verse for some reason known to them. But where is the knowledge (remember, knowledge is a gift of the Holy Spirit, not of humans' own doing) in saying "Matthew 4:5-7?" Rather, it is tempting to be smug, inviting those who know that verse by number to see your bumper stick and think "Oh, what a great Christian I am; I know what topic they are citing." If you are really of the "texting" and LOL generation, one can say to one's friends "457" and that would be a code word for "Satan and Jesus debating" or "Jesus being tempted." Those who are snide could given themselves user names such as Brit457 and those "in the know" would realize that "Brit" is calling him or herself a tempter, or a refuter of Satan.
Humans are like huge walking slippery slopes of ice where it seems that they cannot resist any temptation to parse or to package the complex and thoughtful and meaningful into sound bytes and killer debating points and eventually smug self referential code talk.
This is why I really avoid that mindset and virtually never walk around citing scripture. I have to painfully look up in the Bible every time I cite scripture (even the ones I often blog about) since my mind just refuses to think of the Bible as a series of numbered "points" to make.
All of you need to realize that it is "not Biblical" to cite scripture in a numeric, catchphrase, or "prove it to me" type of way. People (even Satan) were expected to know the fullness of scripture and then ad hoc state "it is written" a truthful statement or paraphrasing from the scripture, without even "showing off" who said it in the first place. I mean, in Matthew 4:5-7, Jesus is citing GOD, but Jesus himself does not say to Satan, "Well, God himself said the following on the fifth scroll first turning first line....." Everyone was authentic Biblical scholars at that time and it would never occur to anyone to feel they have to state exactly word for word and number by number who said what "in the Bible."
Jesus said to him, "It is written further, 'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God'" (Matthew 4:7)
Jesus is "citing" the following:
"You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test, as you did at Massa" (Deuteronomy 6:16).
Suppose that debate was taking place today? Can you not well imagine certain Christians who would (in playing Satan's part) reply to Jesus:
1. Where does it say that? Cite me the book, chapter and verse.
2. You did not quote correctly, so your knowledge of scripture is imperfect.
3. Hmm, well, so God did say that, but he is referring to a specific form of putting God to the test (as at Massa). Doesn't that mean that other forms of testing God are "OK?" I mean, wouldn't God have SAID in "any way" if he meant in any way?
4. Boy Jesus, you sure missed the point of what God was saying. I bet you could not even find Massa on a map.
I wish I was joking or being droll but I am not.
Likewise, Jesus did not "correct" Satan's citation of scripture, as Jesus knows full well what Satan is citing and its context and pertinence.
'He will give his angels charge concerning thee; and upon their hands they shall bear thee up, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone' (Matthew 4:6).
For to his angels he has given command about you, that they guard you in all your ways. Upon their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone. You shall tread upon the asp and the viper; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon (Psalms 90:11-13).
Jesus could have said:
1. Hey Satan, always cite what book, chapter and verse, because otherwise we don't know if "God really said that."
2. Satan, you miss the point. That foot on stone thing is just one example of how God will guard me in "all" "ways." So why are you picking out one of the examples in Psalms 90 to test me with? Why not have me step on a few snakes too, etc.
Isn't that ridiculous, if either had challenged the other in those ways? Yet, be honest. Aren't SOME of you reading this going to yourself, "Oh, hey, that would be a 'good point' if either Satan or Jesus challenged the 'validity of the citation.'"
How foolish and near sighted are the moderns of today, even those who have genuine faith in their hearts.
This is why I taught this particular lesson tonight, so that you meet and recognize your danger of being easily tempted head on. All I had to do was play upon the anal compulsive and "making the point" usage of God's scripture as a play ground for word smiths, numerologists and yes even the obsessive compulsive (or their opposite, the sloppy) faithful and you see how easily the refuting of Satan by Jesus would have been ruined if it was put in modern "standards" and the all too common vernacular.
Admit it. If Jesus was standing in front of you and "cited scripture" and one or two of the words varied from what you had in your hands printed in "your" version of the Bible, a seed of doubt about Jesus would be planted in your heart.
It is for that reason that Jesus came when he did in the times that he did, when people were verbal and filled with the spirit of context, not of word smithing and argumentative, defensive "superiority." That is why people said "it is written" because people were getting the accurate message of God across to each other, but not measuring accuracy by ridiculous word plays and number games. Jesus knew that Satan knew that Satan was citing just one example of how God would be "My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust" (Psalms 90:2) so a "gotcha" moment would be pointless since the point was not to parrot words, but to try to apply scripture to a challenge to Jesus. Likewise Satan did not challenge Jesus that "the prohibition against testing only applies to Massa" because obviously Satan knows that God was forbidding all testing of him, and only mentioning "Massa" so that the people would keep that specific chastisement fresh in their memories.
People: you cannot evangelize nor bolster your own faith and the faith of others if you are using "gotcha" techniques in your day to day discourse and even your fundamental understanding of God's word in scripture. There is a profound difference between being accurate and anal (pardon my being so indelicate but the modern vernacular among the young has changed so much that I can't convey the message without using their common lingo). Likewise there is a profound difference between knowing God's entire word and his context and having preloaded favorite scripture debating points.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Another example.....(extra credit, LOL)
And Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, 'Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people' (Acts 23:5).
Paul is referencing:
"You shall not revile God, nor curse a prince of your people" (Exodus 22:27).
When one reads the scripture, specifically the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles, one realizes that Jesus and the disciples frequently quote from and reference the Biblical writings of the prophets. These writings are what Christians call the Old Testament of the Bible today. The Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) were deeply studied by pious Jews of the time of Christ, of course. The Gospel tells how the scholars at the Temple admired and were astonished by the knowledge of the young boy Jesus.
Most Christians when asked to name an example of Jesus citing scripture would think of the famous exchange between Jesus as he fasted in the desert before commencing his public ministry and Satan, who tried to tempt Jesus away from his mission. This is recounted in Matthew 4:1-11.
Here is the point that I'm going to make for you to consider.
Whenever anyone "cites scripture" (to use a modern expression that everyone takes for granted these days) they did not do it with the technique or attitude that people utilize today. Today people having "dueling scripture" mentality that is based upon "knowing where to look for 'the answer' in the Bible" and thus they center upon (somewhat pridefully) citing the "numbers" (book, chapter and verse). No one, not Jesus, not the Apostles, nor Satan himself, did that during Biblical times. No one said, "If you look in scroll number four and read the tenth sentence it says etc etc etc." People simply said "It is written that..."
Then the devil took him into the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, "If thou art the Son of God, throw thyself down; for it is written 'He will give his angels charge concerning thee; and upon their hands they shall bear thee up, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.'" Jesus said to him, "It is written further, 'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God'" Matthew 4:5-7.
Read for yourselves any place in the New Testament where scripture is cited and you will see that no one gave reference points, such as the book's name, the chapter or the verse, and virtually all used the unchallenged opening phrase to their quotation "it is written."
Why is this important and why am I pointing this out tonight in this blog entry?
I've repeatedly advised my readers that one cannot understand God's words, whether in the Bible or the Qur'an, unless one understands the context of the times. Most people could not read or write and the word of God was an oral experience for them, as God's word was given to the people by the priests, and learned verbally from scholars and family members. No one had the mindset that they had to "prove it is 'in the Bible'" by citing chapter and verse (or scroll or line). So Satan cites scripture and Jesus gives a counter citation, but neither says to the other (duh) "where does it say that in the Bible?" The Bible, of course, did not exist in the chapter and verse form that Christians use today and that is my point.
If one wants a truly authentic emulation of Jesus and the disciples, one needs to read and comprehend the entire Bible, not memorize the key "trick phrases" and citations that bolster one's familiar arguments and beliefs. No one challenged each other "where does it 'say that'" back in the times of Jesus because no one would even think of incorrectly citing scripture.
In other words, authentic knowers of God's word are not "defensive" in their attitudes, as many are today.
So Satan cites scripture without even saying "where" that scripture comes from and "who said it" and about what. In return, Jesus does the same thing, citing scripture without saying who said it and "where it comes from."
Generations of Christian scholars (yep, those early church fathers, both Catholic and Orthodox) performed detailed study of the scripture and footnoting so that future generations would know who and what Jesus and the others were citing.
So if you have an annotated Bible, you can determine by reading the footnote that Satan was citing from the Book of Psalms, while Jesus replied citing Deuteronomy.
Do you understand the two points that I am trying to make? The first point is that neither Satan nor Jesus "came prepared with citations up their sleeves to have that debate." Both so well know the scripture that when the dialogue took place, each could think of the most pertinent citation to make on the spot. How many people do that today? Rather, moderns are proud that they have "pre loaded scripture" that they can cite chapter and verse for the most familiar of purposes and well worn paths of debate, rather than understanding the meaning of the entire Bible, and then drawing from it as needed on the spot, regardless of the occasion for Biblical reference. So if one really wants to be "like Jesus" or the "genuine Apostles," one would have to have mastery of the entire Bible in its content and context, not hopping around extracting and memorizing favorite useful sayings, like they are bullet points for debate cues.
The second point is the temptation that an index system (chapter and verse) provides to those who distill everything into numbers and punch lines. Whenever humans have a technological advance, there is always a plus and a minus. The plus to having written Bibles that are inexpensively printed and able to be read by all is that obviously it is the great equalizer that rich or poor, all can have God's word to have and reference. The minus is that the word of God becomes less of an atmosphere that one is verbally immersed within and becomes, simply put, another intellectual tool.
A reverse snobbery takes place. How often do you see a bumper sticker with just a citation rather than the words? For example, you'd see the above dialogue as a bumper sticker that simply says "Matthew 4:5-7." Those who are "in the know" would see that bumper sticker and recognize that the people who owned that car are citing that verse for some reason known to them. But where is the knowledge (remember, knowledge is a gift of the Holy Spirit, not of humans' own doing) in saying "Matthew 4:5-7?" Rather, it is tempting to be smug, inviting those who know that verse by number to see your bumper stick and think "Oh, what a great Christian I am; I know what topic they are citing." If you are really of the "texting" and LOL generation, one can say to one's friends "457" and that would be a code word for "Satan and Jesus debating" or "Jesus being tempted." Those who are snide could given themselves user names such as Brit457 and those "in the know" would realize that "Brit" is calling him or herself a tempter, or a refuter of Satan.
Humans are like huge walking slippery slopes of ice where it seems that they cannot resist any temptation to parse or to package the complex and thoughtful and meaningful into sound bytes and killer debating points and eventually smug self referential code talk.
This is why I really avoid that mindset and virtually never walk around citing scripture. I have to painfully look up in the Bible every time I cite scripture (even the ones I often blog about) since my mind just refuses to think of the Bible as a series of numbered "points" to make.
All of you need to realize that it is "not Biblical" to cite scripture in a numeric, catchphrase, or "prove it to me" type of way. People (even Satan) were expected to know the fullness of scripture and then ad hoc state "it is written" a truthful statement or paraphrasing from the scripture, without even "showing off" who said it in the first place. I mean, in Matthew 4:5-7, Jesus is citing GOD, but Jesus himself does not say to Satan, "Well, God himself said the following on the fifth scroll first turning first line....." Everyone was authentic Biblical scholars at that time and it would never occur to anyone to feel they have to state exactly word for word and number by number who said what "in the Bible."
Jesus said to him, "It is written further, 'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God'" (Matthew 4:7)
Jesus is "citing" the following:
"You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test, as you did at Massa" (Deuteronomy 6:16).
Suppose that debate was taking place today? Can you not well imagine certain Christians who would (in playing Satan's part) reply to Jesus:
1. Where does it say that? Cite me the book, chapter and verse.
2. You did not quote correctly, so your knowledge of scripture is imperfect.
3. Hmm, well, so God did say that, but he is referring to a specific form of putting God to the test (as at Massa). Doesn't that mean that other forms of testing God are "OK?" I mean, wouldn't God have SAID in "any way" if he meant in any way?
4. Boy Jesus, you sure missed the point of what God was saying. I bet you could not even find Massa on a map.
I wish I was joking or being droll but I am not.
Likewise, Jesus did not "correct" Satan's citation of scripture, as Jesus knows full well what Satan is citing and its context and pertinence.
'He will give his angels charge concerning thee; and upon their hands they shall bear thee up, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone' (Matthew 4:6).
For to his angels he has given command about you, that they guard you in all your ways. Upon their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone. You shall tread upon the asp and the viper; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon (Psalms 90:11-13).
Jesus could have said:
1. Hey Satan, always cite what book, chapter and verse, because otherwise we don't know if "God really said that."
2. Satan, you miss the point. That foot on stone thing is just one example of how God will guard me in "all" "ways." So why are you picking out one of the examples in Psalms 90 to test me with? Why not have me step on a few snakes too, etc.
Isn't that ridiculous, if either had challenged the other in those ways? Yet, be honest. Aren't SOME of you reading this going to yourself, "Oh, hey, that would be a 'good point' if either Satan or Jesus challenged the 'validity of the citation.'"
How foolish and near sighted are the moderns of today, even those who have genuine faith in their hearts.
This is why I taught this particular lesson tonight, so that you meet and recognize your danger of being easily tempted head on. All I had to do was play upon the anal compulsive and "making the point" usage of God's scripture as a play ground for word smiths, numerologists and yes even the obsessive compulsive (or their opposite, the sloppy) faithful and you see how easily the refuting of Satan by Jesus would have been ruined if it was put in modern "standards" and the all too common vernacular.
Admit it. If Jesus was standing in front of you and "cited scripture" and one or two of the words varied from what you had in your hands printed in "your" version of the Bible, a seed of doubt about Jesus would be planted in your heart.
It is for that reason that Jesus came when he did in the times that he did, when people were verbal and filled with the spirit of context, not of word smithing and argumentative, defensive "superiority." That is why people said "it is written" because people were getting the accurate message of God across to each other, but not measuring accuracy by ridiculous word plays and number games. Jesus knew that Satan knew that Satan was citing just one example of how God would be "My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust" (Psalms 90:2) so a "gotcha" moment would be pointless since the point was not to parrot words, but to try to apply scripture to a challenge to Jesus. Likewise Satan did not challenge Jesus that "the prohibition against testing only applies to Massa" because obviously Satan knows that God was forbidding all testing of him, and only mentioning "Massa" so that the people would keep that specific chastisement fresh in their memories.
People: you cannot evangelize nor bolster your own faith and the faith of others if you are using "gotcha" techniques in your day to day discourse and even your fundamental understanding of God's word in scripture. There is a profound difference between being accurate and anal (pardon my being so indelicate but the modern vernacular among the young has changed so much that I can't convey the message without using their common lingo). Likewise there is a profound difference between knowing God's entire word and his context and having preloaded favorite scripture debating points.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Another example.....(extra credit, LOL)
And Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, 'Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people' (Acts 23:5).
Paul is referencing:
"You shall not revile God, nor curse a prince of your people" (Exodus 22:27).
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Continuing to reach out to cultists
Even though stalking cultists have ruined my life (and those of countless others, either deliberately or through neglect, since the error of their beliefs cause them to neglect people and activities who are essential to good life and ultimately salvation), I continue to sincerely reach out to them through this blog. I blog less than I have because I pretty much have said everything that I can say in this format, and only repeat myself.
However, I mention this today to share with you an example of wrong "Christian thinking." Since my life has been ruined and I'm on the brink of bankruptcy, I've become a housekeeper for a Christian man who has a rental facility in his home. In return for housekeeping I have a free room and food and utilities to meet my needs. He's a good guy and tries to do the right thing.
However, as many Christians I have met, he has a serious error in his logic. He knows about the stalking but rather than this knowledge providing more insight into my service on behalf of God (my witnessing) he actually is confounded why I continue to "spend so much time on the computer" and why I blog and hence communicate with the cultists. He basically said that I am provoking cultists by communicating with them, (thus the old "asking for it" argument that men used to use against women who are sexually assaulted).
The vast majority of the stalking, and damage to me, was done before I was blogging, before I understood that many people have skewed and even insane views of God, the Bible, the Qur'an, etc. Far from blogging being me "engaging with" those who have harmed me in a bad way, I continue to believe that my blogging is helping some people somewhere to regain their sanity and to better understand God.
Too many Christians do not understand that in addition to confessing Jesus Christ, they are also OBLIGATED to correct error (there are Biblical citations on that, of course). I do not do it for obligatory reasons, and especially not because I am in some demented way "asking for it." I continue to blog because I pray that each time that I do at least one person (yes, even the worst of stalkers) asks the right questions, receives comfort, and starts to regain their sanity and ultimately find their true belief and be saved from being judged and expelled from God's presence for all eternity.
Time's a wasting. Every day I read obituaries and while no one can speak for God, believe you me I continue to be alarmed at seeing how many people died unrepentant and unsaved.
Many Christians worry more about who is cheating on who (adultery in particular fascinates them) and even worry about gay marriages (which I am not in favor of however I believe in commitment acknowledgements and I spend zero amount of my time worrying about gay marriage or not) but do not worry at all about having erroneous beliefs about God, many of which border on cultist and pagan beliefs and idolatry.
An example would be a so called Christian who secretly engages in occult practices, such as Scientology "tech." That is a great error and I am alarmed at how many of those Christians think they are "covered" regarding being saved because they "believe in Jesus Christ," yet who participate in anti-Godly activities.
I continue to URGENTLY reach out to those people to keep reading my blog, go back and reread with new eyes what I have written in the past (I tire of repeating myself). "Believing in Jesus" is not coverage from continuing in occult, idolatrous or other obsessive compulsive tech type activities that are a way of trying to have sinful control over others.
However, I mention this today to share with you an example of wrong "Christian thinking." Since my life has been ruined and I'm on the brink of bankruptcy, I've become a housekeeper for a Christian man who has a rental facility in his home. In return for housekeeping I have a free room and food and utilities to meet my needs. He's a good guy and tries to do the right thing.
However, as many Christians I have met, he has a serious error in his logic. He knows about the stalking but rather than this knowledge providing more insight into my service on behalf of God (my witnessing) he actually is confounded why I continue to "spend so much time on the computer" and why I blog and hence communicate with the cultists. He basically said that I am provoking cultists by communicating with them, (thus the old "asking for it" argument that men used to use against women who are sexually assaulted).
The vast majority of the stalking, and damage to me, was done before I was blogging, before I understood that many people have skewed and even insane views of God, the Bible, the Qur'an, etc. Far from blogging being me "engaging with" those who have harmed me in a bad way, I continue to believe that my blogging is helping some people somewhere to regain their sanity and to better understand God.
Too many Christians do not understand that in addition to confessing Jesus Christ, they are also OBLIGATED to correct error (there are Biblical citations on that, of course). I do not do it for obligatory reasons, and especially not because I am in some demented way "asking for it." I continue to blog because I pray that each time that I do at least one person (yes, even the worst of stalkers) asks the right questions, receives comfort, and starts to regain their sanity and ultimately find their true belief and be saved from being judged and expelled from God's presence for all eternity.
Time's a wasting. Every day I read obituaries and while no one can speak for God, believe you me I continue to be alarmed at seeing how many people died unrepentant and unsaved.
Many Christians worry more about who is cheating on who (adultery in particular fascinates them) and even worry about gay marriages (which I am not in favor of however I believe in commitment acknowledgements and I spend zero amount of my time worrying about gay marriage or not) but do not worry at all about having erroneous beliefs about God, many of which border on cultist and pagan beliefs and idolatry.
An example would be a so called Christian who secretly engages in occult practices, such as Scientology "tech." That is a great error and I am alarmed at how many of those Christians think they are "covered" regarding being saved because they "believe in Jesus Christ," yet who participate in anti-Godly activities.
I continue to URGENTLY reach out to those people to keep reading my blog, go back and reread with new eyes what I have written in the past (I tire of repeating myself). "Believing in Jesus" is not coverage from continuing in occult, idolatrous or other obsessive compulsive tech type activities that are a way of trying to have sinful control over others.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Another thought about what I just wrote
I know people who like to argue (or "better understand" to put it charitably) will run to their Bibles to look for passages about how people's days are numbered etc. They will say, "See! The Bible says each person's days are numbered and their time is up!"
Listen, again, I am trying to orient you back toward wise reading of those passages, rather than defensive and agenda driven reading of them.
What would I say, if I was a pastor, talking to this family? I would say "God is in control" rather than "It was God's will that her time was up." "God is in control" is the more accurate Christian contemporary type of abbreviated condolence saying because it is not targeted on the death of the person herself. "God is in control" of everything, which means the dispensation of all people and agencies involved at all times. God does not focus his will or control on just one person's accidental death. God is in control of the ultimate outcome of all of human beings' own actions. God makes all things good; God does not make the errors. So to comfort a family you tell them that God is in control, assuring them that justice, mercy and blissful joy will be awarded to even those who suffer at the hands of deliberate or accidental cruelty and loss by other humans.
That is the meaning that all days are numbered, which is there are limitations, and God in his all knowing knows in advance what people will do to each other, and the number of days each person has before age, mishap or illness catches up with them. It's a totally different meaning than God winding up some clock for each person! Gosh I hate that New Age thinking. God knows and foresees all that happens and it is "his will" that it takes place because he does not intervene, in general, in how humans manage themselves. He is not disinterested, and the Holy Spirit works tirelessly to convert and bring everyone to more charitable and responsible behavior, for the glorification of God and for the survivability of humanity. So no one can accuse God of being some detached blob of "universal energy" "detached" and "not caring" about what goes on with individuals, each of whom, truth be told, he knows in their very soul and cares about deeply.
People keep forgetting about guardian angels too. They are not guardian angels in the sense of throwing themselves in front of irresponsible drivers to save their charges from disaster. They are, though, the voice that whispers "Don't drink and drive" and "Put on your seat belt" and "Care about your neighbor." Guardian angels are just one proof that no human lives, or dies, alone. Remember that when this lady in the car hit and run died, her guardian angel went to see God with her. That's an uncaring God? Get over yourselves, please!
Now, Muslims often use the expression "It is God's will." They will say it at times like this, such as tragically losing a family member. But they really are saying "God is in control" because when they say "It is God's will" they are not saying "God did this to her," but they are confessing their knowledge that God is in control of everything, and that events like this fall within his universal control and will. Again, this is a broader and thus more theologically accurate statement than what Christians have come to mean in these personally obsessive and "God limiting" phrases and observations. So when a Muslim says "It is God's will (that a person died)" they will not claim that they know what God is planning or thinking, or even how God perceives humans at all. They mean "God is in control and it is his will that events like this do happen (because he has given life to humans and life does have sorrow and loss by definition.)" Muslims, no matter what sect they are, have a firm and accurate perception of God that God is unknowable and has a much more vast scope of control and perspective than humans could ever have, and that no one event or human life can be interpreted as being a humanly understandable example of his taking action. It is God's will but it cannot be claimed that a human understands what, if any, action God is taking in a human life or event. Only Christians and others who think they can cut God down into understandable parcels think like that. Muslims don't.
I hope this helps. My next blog posting touches, actually, even though I wrote it earlier this morning, on an extreme example of where people need to better understand how they cannot characterize God's will in any correct or understandable way.
Listen, again, I am trying to orient you back toward wise reading of those passages, rather than defensive and agenda driven reading of them.
What would I say, if I was a pastor, talking to this family? I would say "God is in control" rather than "It was God's will that her time was up." "God is in control" is the more accurate Christian contemporary type of abbreviated condolence saying because it is not targeted on the death of the person herself. "God is in control" of everything, which means the dispensation of all people and agencies involved at all times. God does not focus his will or control on just one person's accidental death. God is in control of the ultimate outcome of all of human beings' own actions. God makes all things good; God does not make the errors. So to comfort a family you tell them that God is in control, assuring them that justice, mercy and blissful joy will be awarded to even those who suffer at the hands of deliberate or accidental cruelty and loss by other humans.
That is the meaning that all days are numbered, which is there are limitations, and God in his all knowing knows in advance what people will do to each other, and the number of days each person has before age, mishap or illness catches up with them. It's a totally different meaning than God winding up some clock for each person! Gosh I hate that New Age thinking. God knows and foresees all that happens and it is "his will" that it takes place because he does not intervene, in general, in how humans manage themselves. He is not disinterested, and the Holy Spirit works tirelessly to convert and bring everyone to more charitable and responsible behavior, for the glorification of God and for the survivability of humanity. So no one can accuse God of being some detached blob of "universal energy" "detached" and "not caring" about what goes on with individuals, each of whom, truth be told, he knows in their very soul and cares about deeply.
People keep forgetting about guardian angels too. They are not guardian angels in the sense of throwing themselves in front of irresponsible drivers to save their charges from disaster. They are, though, the voice that whispers "Don't drink and drive" and "Put on your seat belt" and "Care about your neighbor." Guardian angels are just one proof that no human lives, or dies, alone. Remember that when this lady in the car hit and run died, her guardian angel went to see God with her. That's an uncaring God? Get over yourselves, please!
Now, Muslims often use the expression "It is God's will." They will say it at times like this, such as tragically losing a family member. But they really are saying "God is in control" because when they say "It is God's will" they are not saying "God did this to her," but they are confessing their knowledge that God is in control of everything, and that events like this fall within his universal control and will. Again, this is a broader and thus more theologically accurate statement than what Christians have come to mean in these personally obsessive and "God limiting" phrases and observations. So when a Muslim says "It is God's will (that a person died)" they will not claim that they know what God is planning or thinking, or even how God perceives humans at all. They mean "God is in control and it is his will that events like this do happen (because he has given life to humans and life does have sorrow and loss by definition.)" Muslims, no matter what sect they are, have a firm and accurate perception of God that God is unknowable and has a much more vast scope of control and perspective than humans could ever have, and that no one event or human life can be interpreted as being a humanly understandable example of his taking action. It is God's will but it cannot be claimed that a human understands what, if any, action God is taking in a human life or event. Only Christians and others who think they can cut God down into understandable parcels think like that. Muslims don't.
I hope this helps. My next blog posting touches, actually, even though I wrote it earlier this morning, on an extreme example of where people need to better understand how they cannot characterize God's will in any correct or understandable way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
